ORAU Team

Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH

Hanford Site - Occupational Medical Dose

Document Number:

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 

Effective Date: 04/11/2005

Revision No.: 01

Controlled Copy No.: ________

Page 1 of 28

Subject Experts: Vernon E. Shockley and Ronald L. Kathren

Document Owner

Approval: Signature on File Date: 04/07/2005

Edward D. Scalsky, TBD Team Leader

Approval: Signature on File Date: 04/07/2005

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Date: 04/07/2005

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Date: 04/11/2005

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Supersedes:

 Revision No.: 00

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Record of Issue/Revisions ...................................................................................................................

Page

3

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................4

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Technical Factors Affecting Diagnostic X-Ray Dose ................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Applied Kilovoltage and Filtration ....................................................................................5

3.2.2 Current and Exposure Time.............................................................................................7

3.2.3 Distance ..........................................................................................................................8

3.2.4 Collimation and Waveform Characteristics ...................................................................... 8

3.2.5 Screens, Grids, and Other Factors Potentially Affecting Worker Dose............................. 9

3.3 Diagnostic X-Ray Doses to Hanford Workers, 1943 to Date ....................................................... 9

3.3.1 Doses From 14” × 17” PA Chest Radiography............................................................... 12

3.3.2 Lateral 14” × 17” Chest Radiography............................................................................. 16

3.3.3 Chest Photofluorography............................................................................................... 19

3.4 Uncertainty Analysis for Hanford Radiography Doses............................................................... 20

References ........................................................................................................................................23

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................26
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 2 of 28

LIST OF TABLES

Table

3-1 Relationship of beam intensity and various technical factors ..................................................

Page

9

3-2 Analogous of IREP organs not included in ICRP 34 ............................................................. 11

3-3 Frequency of Occupational x-rays at Hanford....................................................................... 12

3-4 Summary of beam parameters for 14" × 17" PA chest radiography ...................................... 14

3-5 Average absorbed chest X-ray dose (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy 

entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 2.5 and 

4.0 mm aluminum HVL ......................................................................................................... 16

3-6 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from before 2/1/1946 

to present ............................................................................................................................. 17

3-7 Average absorbed dose from chest photofluorography (mGy) for selected 

organs for 1 Gy entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam 

quality of 2.5 mm aluminum HVL .......................................................................................... 20

3-8 Organ dose estimates for Hanford photofluorography March 1945 to 

1/31/1962 ............................................................................................................................. 20
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 3 of 28

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION

09/16/2003 08/29/003 00 Original draft technical basis document, Section 3, for 

the Hanford Site. Initiated by Edward D. Scalsky

Draft 10/18/2004 01-A Draft revision to incorporate numerical changes in 

tables and to add additional tables. Initiated by Edward 

D. Scalsky.

Draft 04/04/2005 01-B Incorporates NIOSH review comments. Initiated by 

Edward D. Scalsky.

Draft 04/06/2005 01-C Incorporates additional NIOSH review comments. 

Initiated by Edward D. Scalsky.

04/11/2005 04/11/2005 01 Approved issue of Revision 01. Initiated by Edward D. 

Scalsky.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 4 of 28

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Al aluminum 

cm centimeter

DCF dose conversion factor

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

ESE entrance skin exposure

Gy gray

HVL half value layer

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

ICRU International Commission on Radiological Units

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

kVp peak kilovoltage, applied kilovoltage

LAT lateral

mA milliampere

mAs milliampere-second

mm millimeter

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

PA posterior-anterior

R roentgen

RMS root mean square

s second

SID source to image distance

SSD source to skin distance
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 5 of 28

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic x-ray procedures were an additional contributor to the occupational radiation exposure of 

Hanford workers. In general, the dose from these exposures was neither measured nor considered or 

included as part of the overall occupational exposure of the employee, although it clearly was 

occupationally related. With the passage of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), diagnostic medical x-rays administered in 

conjunction with routine or special physical examinations required for employment were recognized as 

a valid source of occupational exposure. Unlike occupational exposures incurred during normal work 

processes, individual diagnostic medical x-ray exposures were not monitored, necessitating 

reconstruction of the doses acquired in this manner. This report describes the technical aspects of 

dose reconstruction from medical x-rays administered prior to employment and periodically thereafter 

as a condition of employment. 

Technical Basis Documents and Site Profile Documents are general working documents that provide 

guidance concerning the preparation of dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. 

They will be revised in the event additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s). 

These documents may be used to assist NIOSH in the completion of the individual work required for 

each dose reconstruction.

In this document, the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy facility” as defined in the Energy Employee 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 7384l (5) and (12)).” 

3.2 TECHNICAL FACTORS AFFECTING DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY DOSE

A number of factors determine the dose to workers from a diagnostic x-ray procedure. For a more or 

less standard medical radiographic (i.e., diagnostic) unit with a tungsten target (anode) and focal spot 

of 1-2 mm, these include the basic machine settings used for the exposure, which include the applied 

kilovoltage of the beam (kVp), beam current (mA), time of exposure (s), distance, waveform, amount 

and kind of filtration used, collimation or use of diaphragms, tube housing characteristics, type and 

speed of the film, development procedure, screens, grids, and the size of the worker. While this list of 

factors looks formidable, in the absence of direct measurements of the beam itself, which are rarely 

available, the dose to the worker can be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy with 

knowledge of only the three basic machine parameters (applied kilovoltage, current, and time) and 

assumptions about filtration, collimation, and waveform characteristics. The implications of these 

factors to worker dose are discussed below.

3.2.1

The energy of the x-ray beam is determined by the applied kilovoltage and the filtration, and is 

sometimes referred to as beam quality. X-rays, as produced in a typical medical x-ray tube, are 

bremsstrahlung and, as such, are a distribution or spectrum of energies ranging from zero to the 

applied kilovoltage, which refers to the potential between the anode and cathode of the tube. For a 

typical unfiltered x-ray spectrum, the average energy is about one-third of the peak energy, or applied 

kilovoltage. Hence, most of the x-rays produced are much lower in energy than the applied 

kilovoltage of the beam, and are attenuated by the torso or other portion of the body being 

radiographed and never reach the film. These x-rays are of little value in radiography but contribute 

significantly to worker dose.

Applied Kilovoltage and Filtration
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 6 of 28

To reduce the dose to the worker, filtration in the form of a specified thickness of absorbing material is 

added to the beam. This has the net effect of absorbing a large fraction of the lower energy x-rays 

that are of little or no value in making the radiograph while allowing most of the more energetic and 

radiographically useful x-ray photons to pass. In this manner, the dose to the worker is reduced 

significantly and radiographic quality is enhanced. A filtered x-ray spectrum has a correspondingly 

higher average energy than before it was filtered, although the photon fluence rate is much reduced. 

Such a beam is said to have been hardened. A corollary to this filtration technique is to use a higher 

applied kilovoltage and to filter the beam relatively heavily to eliminate most of the low-energy 

radiographically useless photons from reaching the worker. 

Beam energy is specified in terms of quality, or hardness, which in turn can be in terms of the half 

value layer (HVL) in aluminum. Unfortunately, this parameter is seldom available. Even if it is known, 

it is of limited value, in part because it does not specify the maximum energy of the beam or its true 

quality because, as the HVL measurement is made, the absorbers act as filters and the beam is 

further hardened. Thus, the first HVL is always smaller than the second, which in turn is smaller than 

the third, and so forth. What is commonly, although not always, available is the kVp of the machine 

and the external or added filtration. In addition to any external or added filtration, all x-ray tubes have 

so-called inherent filtration, which is the window or port of the tube. In medical diagnostic units, the 

window is thin, typically equivalent to 0.5 mm Al in attenuation and hence provides little beam 

hardening.

Although the benefits of filtration with respect to improved radiographic images were known and 

understood as early as March 1896, within months of the discovery of x-rays (Magie 1896), diagnostic 

radiographs were initially made with no added filtration. Recommendations, albeit not specific as to 

thickness, were made in 1937 by the International Committee for Radiological Units (ICRU), which 

specified aluminum filters for x-rays of 20 to 120 kVp, which incorporated the diagnostic x-ray energy 

range (ICRU 1937). Typical external filtration in the 1940s ranged from none to 1 mm Al. This was in 

line with the 1936 recommendations of the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium 

Protection, which later became the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

(NCRP), which called for 0.5 mm of Al equivalent for radiographic installations, and 1mm Al for 

fluoroscopy (NBS1936). The NCRP recommended 1 mm Al filtration for radiography of thick parts of 

the body such as the chest in 1949 (NBS1949) and this thickness was used during World War II in 

100 mA units in larger military hospitals, and hence presumably at Hanford as well (Olson, Trask and 

Dessen 1966). Recommended thicknesses were later increased; in 1955, the NCRP recommendation 

for diagnostic x-ray units called for 2-mm total Al filtration for new machines (NBS 1955). This was 

increased again in 1968 to 2.5 mm for medical diagnostic units operating above 70 kVp (NCRP 1968). 

For currently operating machines, these recommended filter thicknesses might not have been used 

for some time after the date of the recommendation.

The relationship of beam intensity1 to applied kVp and filtration is complex and to some extent 

machine-specific and hence is best determined empirically. However, in the absence of empirical 

data for a specific machine, adequate contemporary empirical and theoretical data exist upon which to 

determine machine output within a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Additional filtration reduces the 

entrance skin exposure2

 

1. As used herein, beam intensity refers to the output of the machine in terms of exposure in the special sense per mAs. 

Exposure in the special sense is referenced to ionization in air and, as such, is not a dose quantity. 

(ESE), generally in an exponential manner. For a typical single-phase, half2. Throughout this document, italics will be used to differentiate exposure in the special sense from exposure in the general 

sense. Thus exposure refers to exposure in the special sense. A brief discussion of exposure in both the general and 

special sense can be found in numerous publications, including NCRP Report 82 (1985) and ICRU Report 60 (1998). It is 

important to note that the definition and application of the quantity exposure and its concomitant unit the roentgen have 

undergone several important modifications over the years, which have been documented throughout the literature.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 7 of 28

wave, full-wave, or self-rectified machine operating in the diagnostic range of 80 to 100 kVp, each 

additional millimeter of Al filtration will effect a reduction of about 40% in the ESE (Trout, Kelley, and 

Cathey 1952; Taylor 1957). Thus, the approximate intensity reduction afforded by any thickness of Al 

filtration can be determined by the following exponential equation:

I = Ioe-0.5t

or

ln (I/Io) = -0.5 t

where t is the thickness of Al in millimeters, and I and Io are the beam intensities with and without the 

filter, respectively. In the absence of specific measurements or empirical data, this correction can be 

applied to determine the effect of filtration on beam intensity and is consistent with the guidance in 

Revision 1 to OCAS-IG-001, “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline” (August 

2002).

Similarly, increasing the kVp will increase the beam intensity or exposure rate. This can be calculated 

using Kramer’s rule, but such calculations are difficult, complex, and time-consuming, even with highspeed computers, and are at best approximations. However, many empirical studies of beam 

intensity as a function of kVp provide ample credible evidence to show that for a given amount of 

filtration, increasing the applied kVp will increase the beam intensity according to the 1.7 power of the 

applied kilovoltage (Handloser 1951; Trout, Kelley, and Cathey 1952; Kathren 1965; BRH 1970). In 

the absence of specific measurements or empirical data, this function can be applied to determine the 

effect of applied kilovoltage on beam intensity, and is fully consistent with the guidance in Revision 1 

to OCAS-IG-001, “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline” (August 2002).

3.2.2

Diagnostic x-ray exposures are typically specified in terms of milliampere-seconds (mAs), the product 

of x-ray tube current and exposure time. Thus, all factors being equal (e.g., kVp, filtration, film, 

development and screen combination), radiation exposure is proportional to the number of mAs. The 

current in an x-ray tube refers to the number of electrons accelerated across the evacuated volume of 

the tube, flowing from the cathode to the anode. For a given applied kilovoltage, the number of x-ray 

photons produced, and hence the exposure will, at least in theory, be directly proportional to the x-ray 

tube current; this is and has been true for most medical radiography units over their design tube 

current range. Data from beam measurements made with medical radiographic x-ray units at Hanford 

over the years are indicative of this linearity. Thus, in the absence of measurements or other data or 

information to the contrary, it is reasonable and consistent with long-standing radiographic practice 

(Sante 1946) to assume linearity of exposure with tube current for a given kVp and filtration.

Current and Exposure Time

Exposure time refers to the time that the beam was on or the machine was producing x-rays and is, 

for all practical purposes, linear with exposure. To avoid or minimize image blurring from the beating 

heart, exposure time for chest radiography was minimized, and the current (mA) concomitantly and 

proportionately increased to obtain the desired exposure in terms of mAs. However, from a dose 

reconstruction standpoint, earlier medical radiographic units were equipped with mechanical timers 

whose accuracy was not as good as the electronic timers used on later apparatus. Gross bias errors 

in timer accuracy are unlikely in that these would result in over or underexposure of the radiograph 

and so would be quickly detected and corrected. Subtler are small random errors, which might 

produce uncertainties of perhaps ± 20% in the exposure. However, measurement data, albeit limited, 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 8 of 28

from the Hanford medical x-ray units give no indication or suggestion that the time or exposure 

parameters might be subject to error. 

Chest photofluorography, which resulted in much greater worker doses than a standard radiographic 

procedure, was used from 1945-1962 at Hanford. Photofluorography used a smaller film (typically 4 × 

5 inches), a smaller source to skin distance (SSD) of 42 inches, and both a higher kVp and typically a 

several-fold greater exposure in terms of mAs. Exposure was regulated by photometers, which 

utilized exposure to the film to determine the time of exposure. 

3.2.3

X-ray beam intensity is a function of distance from the target, approximating the inverse square at 

large distances from the tube. Radiographic chest films were taken at a standard source to image 

distance (SID)

Distance

3

3.2.4

of 72 inches; the source refers to the focal spot of the tube and the image to the plane 

of the film. The distance to the worker, who was between the source and the film cassette, 

sometimes expressed in terms of the SSD, was somewhat smaller and, hence, the ESE to the worker 

was somewhat greater than the exposure at the plane of the film. In addition, patient attenuation 

would further reduce or attenuate the number of photons reaching the film. To compensate for the 

increased attenuation provided by a larger worker, x-ray technicians would sometimes increase the 

beam settings or, if the machine was so equipped, might use a high-speed Bucky diaphragm, 

probably with a somewhat higher kVp. Thus, it might be appropriate for a dose reconstructor to 

increase the ESE for a large or stout worker. Based on standard contemporary techniques (Picker 

1941; Fuchs 1958; Cahoon 1961) for workers with a chest thickness of 25 to 27 cm, an increase of + 

50% from the ESE to the average worker should be sufficiently conservative; for still larger workers, a 

factor of 2.0 would be appropriate. 

Among other factors that could affect worker dose are collimation and waveform. X-ray waveforms 

are of three types: half wave rectified, which is almost never seen; full wave rectified, which is typical 

of medical radiographic units and characteristic of the units used at Hanford; and constant potential. 

A half wave rectified machine produces 60 half-sinusoidal shape pulses of x-rays per second, each 

with a duration of 1/120 of a second. A full wave rectified machine produces 120 half-sinusoidal 

pulses per second, each with a duration of 1/120 second. Thus, for a given setting of kVp and mA, 

the intensity of the beam from a half wave rectified machine is half that of the beam from the full wave 

rectified type. A constant potential machine produces a more or less steady (i.e., unpulsed) output of 

x-rays and has a somewhat greater beam intensity – approximately 10% – compared with a full wave 

rectified machine operating at the same kVp and mA. For Hanford, waveform is of no significance 

with respect to retrospective determination of worker exposure because actual output measurement 

data are available. 

Collimation and Waveform Characteristics

Collimation refers to the size of beam. The early philosophy was to use a fairly large aperture with 

limited collimation to ensure that the entire area of interest was included in the radiograph. Later, 

because of protection concerns and to improve radiographic quality by minimizing scatter, beams 

were collimated (Rising ad Soldat 1959; Mancuso, Sanders and Brodsky 1966) such that the smallest 

beam consistent with the area of interest was used, thereby limiting the area of the patient exposed 

and, in the case of chest radiography, minimizing dose to organs such as gonads, thyroid, and 

gastrointestinal tract. A practical check of collimation can be made by reference to the radiograph; a 

well-collimated beam will leave a small-unexposed area or penumbra effect at the edges of the 

 

3. Also known as film-to-focus distance (FFD).
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 9 of 28

radiograph, while a poorly collimated beam will produce a radiograph that is exposed over all of its 

area. The available collimation data for Hanford, is based on actual direct beam measurements which 

shows that x-ray beams used in procedures at Hanford were well collimated (Rising and Soldat 1959). 

These data are included as Figure 1 and Table 1 to Rising and Soldat (1959) and provides the “Filters 

and Collimators” information in Table 1. The collimation for the old x-ray machines at Kadlec 

Methodist Hospital X-ray Department is discussed in (Mancuso, Sanders and Brodsky 1966, P. 142 – 

144) which states, “ The techniques and conditions used were those specified by Mr. Ted Hall, x-ray 

technician at Kadlec Methodist Hospital: as representing the conditions prevailing and under which 

the machine was operated during the period from 1946 through 1956”. On page, 144 of that record 

data are also provided showing collimation for this time period (Mancuso, Sanders and Brodsky, 

1966, p.144). 

3.2.5

A number of other factors affect the x-ray exposure required to obtain a proper radiograph and, 

hence, the dose to the worker. Knowledge of these factors is unnecessary for dose reconstruction 

purposes if beam measurements are available or if the primary machine characteristics of applied 

kilovoltage, time, and current are known along with the amount of primary beam filtration; however, 

the factors can be used as additional confirmation of the applicability of the reconstructed dose. For 

completeness, this report makes brief mention of these factors, which are tube housing, type and 

speed of film, development procedure, screens, and grids.

Screens, Grids, and Other Factors Potentially Affecting Worker Dose

X-ray tubes used for diagnostic radiography are typically enclosed in protective lead or shielded tube 

housings with the primary beam brought out through a port or window in the side of the housing. 

Although some reduction of the dose to the worker is achieved, largely through elimination of 

scattered radiation and improved collimation, the primary purpose of this diagnostic tube housing is 

for the protection of the operator and unexposed x-ray film and nearby individuals other than the 

worker. This issue is moot, however, because virtually all x-ray tubes, and certainly those used at 

Hanford since its inception, had protective tube housings.

The amount of exposure needed for a suitable diagnostic radiograph is in some measure a function of 

film speed and development. Fine grain emulsions produce a superior radiographic image but require 

additional exposure in comparison to fast films. Underdevelopment of films also requires additional 

exposure to achieve satisfactory radiographic quality. Intensifying screens are used in the cassette to 

intensify the radiographic effect and thereby increase film speed and reduce worker dose. Grids, 

specifically the Potter-Bucky diaphragm (colloquially known as a Bucky) are sometimes utilized for 

thick section radiography, but rarely for chest radiography except with large workers. In any case, the 

above are all factored into the technique (i.e., kVp, mA) that is used and, except in rare instances and 

a virtually complete absence of other data, are not important in dose reconstruction.

3.3 DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY DOSES TO HANFORD WORKERS, 1943 TO DATE 

For convenience and possible application to cases in which the standard Hanford protocol was not 

followed, or for generic use, Table 3-1 lists the effects of various technical factors.

Table 3-1. Relationship of beam intensity and various technical factors. 

Parameter Units Relationship with Intensity

Applied voltage kVp Intensity proportional to 1.7 power of kVp

Tube current mA Linear

Exposure time s Linear

Filtration mm Al Intensity decreases by ~40% for each additional mm Al
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 10 of 28

Parameter Units Relationship with Intensity

Worker size

(chest thickness) 

25-27 mm

> 27 mm

Dose increased by factor of 1.5

Dose increased by factor of 2

Distance d Approximately inverse square relations (1/d2)

Uncertainty + 30 % Assume all errors are positive, + 30% should be used

Extensive review of the available documentation on the occupational medical program at Hanford 

from 1943 to the present revealed that only three diagnostic medical radiographic procedures were 

administered in connection with pre-employment or regular post employment medical examinations: 

1. Posterior-anterior (PA) 14” × 17” chest film

2. Lateral (LAT) 14” x 17” chest film

3. Photofluorographic 4” × 5” chest film

Accordingly, only doses from these three techniques were evaluated. Other radiographic 

examinations of Hanford employees that might have occurred were nonoccupational in the sense that 

they were necessitated by illness or injury and were not part of the employee physical examination 

process. Thus, there is no indication in the records that other diagnostic radiographic examinations 

were administered as part of the occupational medical program, or that radiological treatment for 

shrinkage of lymphoid tissue was ever performed on Hanford workers.

A potential problem common to all procedures relates to the conversion of exposure represented by 

ESE to absorbed organ dose, and to changes in the definition of dose and the burgeoning of 

numerous dose quantities. Over the 50 or so years since the beginning of Hanford operations, the 

quantity known today as exposure has undergone several important conceptual changes, as has the 

application of the unit of exposure, the roentgen, which in itself is obsolete. Thus, there is much 

confusion about the definition of exposure and its associated unit, the roentgen. At one time, the 

roentgen was used to quantify the dose from electromagnetic radiation and, when this proved 

confusing and inexact, was defined as exposure dose to distinguish it from the term absorbed dose, 

which was applicable to any type of radiation.

Additional confusion was engendered by changes in the values of the conversion coefficients used to 

convert exposure to absorbed dose; at various times an exposure of 1 R would be equated to a soft 

tissue dose of 0.83, 0.877, or 0.93 rad. Thus, an exposure to air of 1 R would result in an absorbed 

dose of somewhat less than 1 rad (1 cGy = 10 mGy). Nonetheless, regulations applicable to Hanford 

and other DOE sites defined 1 R as exactly equal to a dose of 1 rad (10 mGy), thereby producing an 

overestimate in the reported dose or dose equivalent because dosimeters were typically calibrated 

against a field measured in R, which was numerically equated as absorbed dose in rad (Kathren and 

Petersen 1989). Further complicating the conversion of ESE in terms of exposure to absorbed dose 

is the contemporary trend to refer to x-ray intensity in terms of the quantity kerma, which is measured 

in the same units as absorbed dose. Typically, the numerical value of kerma is slightly lower than the 

corresponding value of absorbed dose. Thus, to ensure conservatism and compliance with National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidance document OCAS-IG-001, and to avoid 

any risk of dose underestimation, 1 R of exposure was taken to be equal to1 rad of absorbed dose in 

soft tissue and to 1 rad (10mGy) of kerma. 

Conversion of exposure expressed as ESE was made in accordance with published conversion 

coefficients in Tables A2 through A8 of International Commission on Radiological Protection 

Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). These tables provide average absorbed organ doses for specific 

selected medical radiography procedures relative to an entrance air kerma without backscatter of 1 

Gy for various beam qualities expressed in terms of HVL of aluminum. However, the tables do not 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 11 of 28

include all organs identified in the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) code. For organs 

included in the IREP but not specifically identified in ICRP 34 (1982), use of the dose conversion 

coefficient for the organ identified in ICRP 34 (1982) that is anatomically the closest would seem to be 

a reasonable and simple first-order approach that generally would be claimant-favorable or neutral. 

Thus, the factor for lung would be applied to all other organs within the thoracic cavity (thymus, 

esophagus, liver, gall bladder, spleen and stomach) as shown in Table 3-2. Because an appreciable 

fraction of the skeleton, in particular the trabecular bone, which has a large surface-to-volume ratio, 

and the sternum, which is a primary location of red marrow in the adult, lies within the trunk, the factor 

for lung would also be applied to the bone surfaces and remainder organs. For organs in the 

abdomen (i.e., urinary bladder, and colon/rectum) the dose conversion coefficient for ovary would be 

used. For the eye/brain, the analogous organ is the thyroid. The doses for the IREP organs that are 

not listed in ICRP 34 (1982) were determined using the analogous organs in Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2. Analogous of IREP organs not included in ICRP 

34.

Anatomical 

location

IREP 34 

reference organ

IREP organ analogues

Thorax Lung Thymus

Esophagus

Stomach

Bone surface

Liver, gall bladder, spleen

Remainder organs

Abdomen Ovaries Urinary bladder

Colon/rectum

Head and neck Thyroid Eye/brain

Because, as discussed above, 1R was taken to be 10 mGy of kerma, conversion could easily be 

made if the beam quality was known. Measured beam quality data were not found. However, the 

kVp and filtration were known, and an estimate of beam quality could be made from these data. 

Because for a given amount of filtration and exposure (mAs) absorbed organ dose increases as a 

function of HVL, for conservatism the upper limit on the likely beam quality was calculated and 

rounded up to match the closest value in the tables in ICRP 34 (1982). For the period prior to January 

28, 1983, beam quality expressed as HVL was conservatively estimated to be 2.5 mm Al; after 

January 28, 1983, the estimate was 4.0 mm Al. These values are somewhat greater than the 1.75 

and approximately 3.5 mm Al values that would be derived from Table A16 of ICRP 34(1982) and, 

therefore, are claimant-favorable.

Table 3-3, “Frequency of occupational chest x-rays at the Hanford”, shows the frequency of various 

occupationally required x-ray procedures for preemployment, annual, transfer (on leaving and 

sometimes entry), and interval, culled from Hanford documents (Cantril 1946; Cleavinger 1978; Daly 

1985; Fuqua 1981, Kirklin et al. 1969, Milroy 1988; Vails 1980). In the early years at the site, periodic 

x-ray examinations were relatively frequent and the groups of workers identified at-risk received, 

medical exams, including x-rays, at more frequent intervals than other workers. For work with 

radiation hazards, interval exams in January 1944 were as close to 4 weeks as possible. By July 

1945, the exam intervals were lengthened from 4 to 7 or 8 weeks. Other employees not working with 

radiation or other special hazards were examined every 3 to 6 months (Cantril 1946). The frequency 

of medical radiographs was reduced to annually until 1959 and thereafter on a schedule dependent 

on age but no greater than annually. 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 12 of 28

Table 3-3. Frequency of occupational chest x-rays at Hanford. 

Period Frequency Comment

Before 

2/1/46

Entrance All employees.

Exit All employees.

Annually c All employees.

2/2/46 to 

4/12/1959

Entrance All employees.

Exit All employees.

Annually c All employees.

4/13/1959 to 

1/28/83

Entrance a Over 50 years old.

Annually Over 50 years old

Exit a Over 50 years old

Biennial b 40 to 49 years old

Every 3rd year b Under 40 years old

1/29/83 to Entrance a Over 50 years old.

3/30/90 Annually Over 50 years old

Exit a Over 50 years old

Biennial 40 to 49 years old

3/31/90 to Entrance a Over 50 years old.

4/22/97 Annually Over 50 years old

Exit a Over 50 years old

Biennial 40 to 49 years old

4/23/79 to 

2/4/98

Every 5th year All employees

2/5/98 to 

Present

Every 5th year All employees

Frequency Photofluorographic Procedures 

March 

11945 to 

1/31/62

Annual and 

periodic, 4 to 8 

weeks 

All Radiation Workers and Workers at Risk

a. Entrance and exit x-rays were provided from 1941 to mid 1980 (Vails 1980). These x-rays were not required after 1980 unless 

personnel were in a job class that required an x-ray or clinical needs were indicated. 

b. Beginning January 4, 1982, protocol was biennial after age 45, and every 5 years for all others (Fuqua 1981).

c. Employees who were exposed to radiation or special hazards were x-rayed at intervals as close to 4 weeks as, possible; others were 

examined at 3 – 6 month intervals up to July 1, 1945. After July 1, 1945 these intervals were increased to 4 to 8 weeks for the former 

group (Cantril 1946, 1951)

3.3.1

Table 3-4 summarizes salient data for the 14” × 17” PA chest radiography. As indicated in the table, 

14” × 17” PA chest radiography was the most widely used diagnostic procedure and was identified on 

the medical record by the code C05. In some cases stereo views were taken, these required two 14 x 

17 inch films and were identified on the medical record by the code C06 (Mancuso, Sanders, and 

Brodsky 1958). The dates of measurement refer to the dates of an actual measurement of machine 

output for the procedure specified. There is a generally decreasing trend of ESE with time, which is 

wholly consistent with what has been the general experience nationally (Gray 1996). For 

conservatism in determining or reconstructing doses and in accordance with the guidance in OCASIG-001, the ESE should be assumed to have been constant from the time of the measurement until 

the time of the next measurement. Thus, referring to Table 3-4, radiographs taken from February 4, 

1998, to the present would have an ESE of 11 mR; those taken prior to February 4, 1998, but on or 

after April 22, 1997, would have an ESE of 17 mR. 

Doses From 14” × 17” PA Chest Radiography 

Certain aspects of the data require further explanation. The ESE for March 30, 1990, is 

characterized as “21 mR Assumed”. In fact, the results from a survey performed by the State of 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 13 of 28

Washington indicate that the measured worker exposure from the 14” × 17” PA chest radiography 

procedure was 11.7 mR. This value seemed inconsistent with the 21-mR value obtained by the 

State with the same machine and settings on November 11, 1993, and too small in comparison to 

the measurement of 35 mR obtained by the State on January 21, 1988. In fact, the ratio of ESE 

from the 1988 and 1993 measurements (35/21 = 1.67), was very close to the exposure in mAs 

(10/6.7 = 1.5) for this pair of measurements. Thus, for conservatism and in accordance with the 

guidance provided by OCAS-IG-001, 21 mR was assumed to be the proper value for the March 30, 

1990, measurement.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 14 of 28

Table 3-4. Summary of beam parameters for 14" × 17 " PA chest radiography. Date measured Before 2/46 2/1/1946 4/12/1959 1/28/1983 1/20/1988 1/21/1988 3/30/1990 11/11/1993 4/22/1997 2/04/98 10/18/1999

Procedure Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Machine type Unknown Unknown Unknown G.E. DXR 750 CONX Type 12 CONX Type 12 CONX Type 12 CONX Type 12 CONXI Type 12 XMA - 360 XMA - 360

Machine settings kVp: Unknown 80 80 100 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

mA Unknown 500 300 200 100 200 200 200 300 300 300

Exposure time Unknown 1/20 sec 1/30 sec 1/20 sec 1/10 sec 1/20 sec 1/30 sec 1/30 sec 1/30 sec 1/60 sec 1/60 sec

mAs Unknown 25 10 10 10 10 6.7 6.7 10 5 5

Added filter 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.7 mm 2.7 mm

Assumed HVL 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm

Source to skin distance 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72" 72"

Entrance skin 

exposure

120 mR 79 mR 40 mR 35 mR 35 mR 35 mR 21 mR 

(Assumed)

21mR 17 mR 11 mR 11 mR

mR/mAs Unknown 3.2 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 1.7 2.2 2.2

Date range 2/46 to 4/59 4/59 to 1/83 1/83 to 3/90 3/90 to 4/97 4/97 to 2/98 2/98 to date

Reference Based on 

experience & 

references of 

early 1940s xray dose. 

Assumed for 

Hanford.

Mancuso et al. 

Dated 1966

Rising & 

Soldat letter to 

Norwood dated 

4/30/59

Kathren to 

Heid 

memorandum 

Dated 1/28/83

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. Of 

Health 

Measurement

Measured at 

11.7 mR by 

State. The 

1993 value 

used, as it was 

higher for 

same 

settings& 

machine. 

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 15 of 28

Organ Dose Calculation Methods – Posterior-Anterior Chest Films:

Organ doses for PA chest films were calculated using the exposure expressed as ESE and in 

accordance with dose conversion factors (DCFs) in Tables A2 through A8 of ICRP 34 (1982). Table 

3-4, “Summary of Beam Parameters for 14” × 17” PA Chest Radiography,” provides the measured 

dose information for each period during which the PA chest exams were given to Hanford workers. 

Because absorbed organ dose for PA chest radiographs will increase as a function of HVL, two HVLs 

were calculated and used for dose determination. For the period prior to January 28, 1983, the 

calculated beam quality expressed, as HVL was 2.5 mm Al; after January 28, 1983, 4.0 mm Al was 

used (see above for details). These are likely overestimates of HVL and hence claimant favorable.

Following are the methods used to calculate the dose in gray (Gy) from the Table 3-4 measured 

doses used in the exposure determination for each period from 1943 to date. (NOTE: the PA ESE 

assumed for the period before 1946 were 120 mR based on experience and references from the 

early 1940s): 

Before 

2/1/1946

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and an estimated ESE of 120 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 120 mR/100mR per mGy = 1.2 mGy and 1.2 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.0012 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 dose 

conversion factors (DCFs) (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al 

HVL) to determine organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). 

Dose to ovaries and associated organs, and to the testes, were calculated from ratios 

determined from the dose factors given in ICRP 34 (1982) and measurements made 

by (Rising and Soldat 1959).

2/1/46 to 

4/12/1959

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 79 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 79 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.79 mGy and 0.79 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00079 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). Doses to the 

ovaries and testes are calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959) 

4/13/59 to 

1/28/1983

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 40 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 40 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.40 mGy and 0.40 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00040 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). Doses to ovaries 

and testes are calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959).

1/29/1983 to 

3/30/1990

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 35 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 35 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.35 mGy and 0.35 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00035 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). 

3/31/1990 to 

4/22/1997

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 21 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 21 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.21 mGy and 0.21 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00021 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982).
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 16 of 28

4/23/1997 to 

2/4/1998

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 17 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 17 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.17 mGy and 0.17 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00017 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982).

2/5/1998 to 

present

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 11 mR. Dose 

in Gy determined by 11 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.11 mGy and 0.17 mGy/1000mGy 

per 1 Gy = 0.00011 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 DCFs (mGy per Gy 

air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ doses in Table 3-

6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982).

3.3.2

Table 3-6 summarizes the period, applicability, and organ doses for the lateral 14” × 17” chest 

radiography. Although lateral 14” × 17” chest radiography might have been incorporated into the preand continuing employment physical examinations at Hanford, lateral chest exams were not a regularly 

scheduled or standard practice and occurred on an ad hoc basis. These exams are identified on the 

medical record by the code C03 (Mancuso, sanders, and Brodsky 1958). The dose from a lateral 14” × 

17” chest radiograph is significantly greater than that from the more common 14” × 17” PA chest 

radiography procedure. All other factors notwithstanding, the ESE must of necessity be increased 

because of the greater body thickness presented laterally in comparison to PA. This means that the 

body will be closer to the x-ray tube, which will further increase the ESE. Few measurement data are 

available for lateral 14” × 17” chest radiography at Hanford. Data by Kirklin et al. (1969) indicate that 

the ESE from a lateral radiograph was 1.94 times the ESE from a PA chest radiograph, or 

approximately, twice the ESE from a PA chest radiograph. Depending on the degree of measurement 

error, this value could be slightly greater or smaller. Because other measured data suggest that the 

ratio of ESE from lateral and PA chest radiographs could have been somewhat greater (Cardarelli et al. 

2002; Stanford and Vance 1955), to ensure that dose from this source was not underestimated a 

moderately conservative factor of 2.5 was assumed for the ratio of ESE (air kerma) from lateral to PA 

chest radiography for organ dose calculations.

Lateral 14” × 17” Chest Radiography

Organ Dose Calculation Methods – Lateral Chest Radiography

The organ doses for lateral (LAT) chest radiography were calculated using the exposure expressed as 

ESE and were in accordance with conversion coefficients in Tables A2 through A8 of ICRP 

Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). Several of the references above support the use of a factor of 2.5 times 

the PA chest radiography ESE dose for the lateral chest radiography ESE dose. This factor was used 

to determine doses for lateral chest radiography for Hanford workers for 1943 to date. Because 

absorbed organ dose for lateral chest radiographs increases as a function of the HVL of the Al filter 

used, two HVLs were calculated and used for dose determination. For the period prior to January 28, 

1983 the estimated beam, quality was expressed as an HVL of 2.5 mm Al; after January 28, 1983, the 

estimate was 4.0 mm Al.

Table 3-5. Average absorbed chest X-ray dose (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy entrance 

kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 2.5 and 4.0 mm aluminum HVL.

a

Organ View

Source-image 

distance (cm)

Image 

receptor 

size (cm)

Dose conversion factor (mGy per Gy air kerma) 

(Beam quality 

2.5 mm aluminum HVL)

(Beam quality 4.0 mm of 

aluminum HVL)

Prior to 1/ 28/83 After 1/29/83

Thyroid PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 32 78

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 115 164

Ovaries (b) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 1(b) 5.2
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 17 of 28

Organ View

Source-image 

distance (cm)

Image 

receptor 

size (cm)

Dose conversion factor (mGy per Gy air kerma) 

(Beam quality 

2.5 mm aluminum HVL)

(Beam quality 4.0 mm of 

aluminum HVL)

Prior to 1/ 28/83 After 1/29/83

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.6 (b) 2.5

Testes (b) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.01(b) 0.01

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.1 (b) 0.1

Lungs (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 419 628

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 193 313

Lungs (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 451 674

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 220 351

Breast PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 49 116

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 255 343

Uterus/Embryo PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 1.3 5.2

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.6 2.1

Bone marrow (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 92 178

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 37 76

Bone marrow (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 86 172

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 29 59

a. Dose conversion Factors from Tables A.2 through A.8 (ICRP 34 1982).

b. Doses were calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959), 0.0293 mrad for testes and 0.867 mrad for ovaries through 

1/28/83 thus the dose conversion factors from Table 3-5 were not used.

Following are the methods used to calculate the dose in Gy from the Table 3-5 measured doses that 

are used in the dose determination for each period from 1943 to date. (NOTE: The lateral dose ESE 

used for the period before 1946 is 2.5 times the 120-mR PA assumed ESE, or 300 mR for the lateral 

chest radiography dose): 

Before 

2/1/1946

14” × 17” Lat chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and an assumed ESE of 300 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 300 mR/100mR per mGy = 3.0 mGy and 3.0 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.003 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 DCFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). Dose to the ovaries and 

associated organs, and to the testes, were calculated from ratios determined from the 

dose factors given in ICRP 34 (1982) and measurements by (Rising and Soldat 

1959).

2/1/46 to 

4/12/1959

14” × 17” Lat chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 198 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 198 mR/100mR per mGy = 1.98 mGy and 1.98 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00198 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). Doses to Ovaries 

and testes are calculated from measurements (Rising & Soldat 1959). 

Table 3-6. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from before 2/1/1946 

to Present. 

Before 

2/1/46

2/1/46 to 

4/12/59

4/13/59 

to 

1/28/83

1/29/83 

to 

3/30/90

3/31/90 

to 

4/22/97

4/23/97 

to 2/4/98

2/5/98 

too 

Present

Organ View

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Thyroid PA 3.84E-03 2.53E-03 1.28E-03 2.73E-03 1.64E-03 1.33E-03 8.58E-04

Lat. 3.45E-02 2.28E-02 1.15E-02 1.44E-02 8.69E-03 7.05E-03 4.59E-03

Eye/Brain PA 3.84E-03 2.53E-03 1.28E-03 2.73E-03 1.64E-03 1.33E-03 8.58E-04

Lat. 3.45E-02 2.28E-02 1.15E-02 1.44E-02 8.69E-03 7.05E-03 4.59E-03

Ovaries a PA 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 1.82E-05 1.09E-04 8.84E-05 5.72E-05
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 18 of 28

Before 

2/1/46

2/1/46 to 

4/12/59

4/13/59 

to 

1/28/83

1/29/83 

to 

3/30/90

3/31/90 

to 

4/22/97

4/23/97 

to 2/4/98

2/5/98 

too 

Present

Organ View

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Dose 

(rem)

Lat. 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 2.20E-05 1.33E-04 1.08E-04 7.00E-05

Urinary/Bladder PA 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 1.82E-05 1.09E-04 8.84E-05 5.72E-05

Lat. 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 2.20E-04 1.33E-04 1.08E-04 7.00E-05

Colon/Rectum PA 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 1.82E-05 1.09E-04 8.84E-05 5.72E-05

Lat. 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 2.20E-05 1.33E-04 1.08E-04 7.00E-05

Testes a PA 2.93E-05 2.93E-05 2.93E-05 3.50E-07 2.10E-07 1.70E-07 1.10E-07

Lat. 4.42E-05 4.42E-05 4.42E-05 8.80E-06 5.30E-06 4.30E-06 2.80E-06

Lungs (male) PA 5.03E-02 3.31E-02 1.68E-02 2.20E-02 1.32E-02 1.07E-02 6.91E-03

Lat. 5.79E-02 3.82E-02 1.93E-02 2.75E-02 1.66E-02 1.35E-02 8.76E-03

Lungs (female) PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat. 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Thymus PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Esophagus PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Stomach PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat. 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Bone Surface PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat. 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Liver/gall Bladder/Spleen PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat. 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Remainder organs PA 5.41E-02 3.56E-02 1.80E-02 2.36E-02 1.42E-02 1.15E-02 7.41E-03

Lat. 6.60E-02 4.36E-02 2.20E-02 3.09E-02 1.86E-02 1.51E-02 9.83E-03

Breast PA 5.88E-03 3.87E-03 1.96E-03 4.06E-03 2.44E-03 1.97E-03 1.28E-03

Lat. 7.65E-02 5.05E-02 2.55E-02 3.02E-02 1.82E-02 1.47E-02 9.60E-03

Uterus/Embryo PA 1.79E-02 1.18E-02 5.20E-05 1.82E-04 1.09E-04 8.84E-05 5.72E-05

Lat. 1.29E-02 8.51E-03 6.00E-05 1.85E-04 1.11E-04 9.03E-05 5.88E-05

Bone marrow (male) PA 1.10E-02 7.27E-03 3.68E-03 6.23E-03 3.74E-03 3.03E-03 1.96E-03

Lat. 1.11E-02 7.33E-03 3.70E-03 6.69E-03 4.03E-03 3.27E-03 2.13E-03

Bone marrow (female) PA 1.03E-02 6.79E-03 3.44E-03 6.02E-03 3.61E-03 2.92E-03 1.89E-03

Lat. 8.70E-03 5.74E-03 2.90E-03 5.19E-03 3.13E-03 2.54E-03 1.65E-03

Skin b PA 1.62E-01 1.07E-01 5.40E-02 4.90E-02 2.94E-02 2.38E-02 1.54E-02

Lat 4.5E-01 2.67E-01 1.35E-01 1.23E-01 7.42E-02 6.02E-02 3.92E-02

a. Doses were calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959) for testes 0.0293 mrad & ovaries 0.867 mrad for x-ray exams 

before 1/29/83. b. Skin dose was determined by multiplying the ESE by the backscatter factors of 1.35 and 1.4 respectively (for HVL of 2.5 and 4.0) from 

NCRP Report No. 102 (1989), Table B-8. 

4/13/59 to 

1/28/1983

14” × 17” Lat chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 100 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 100 mR/100mR per mGy = 1.00 mGy and 1.00 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.0010 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 DCFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). Doses to Ovaries and 

testes are calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959).

1/29/1983 to 

3/30/1990

14” × 17” lat chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 88 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 88 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.88 mGy and 0.88 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00088 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982). 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 19 of 28

3/31/1990 to 

4/22/1997

14” × 17” lat chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 53 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 53 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.53 mGy and 0.53 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00053 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982).

4/23/1997 to 

2/4/1998

14” × 17” lat chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 43 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gray determined by 43 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.43 mGy and 0.43 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00043 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982).

2/5/1998 to 

Present

14” × 17” lat chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 28 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 28 mR/100mR per mGy = 0.28 mGy and 0.28 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00028 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-5 

DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine 

organ doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 (1982).

3.3.3

From 1945 to 1962, beginning in March 1945, when fluoroscopic equipment was received at Hanford, 

4” × 5” photofluorographic chest films were taken at the Site (Cantril 1946). The potential for high 

exposure from this procedure was recognized by Herbert Parker, who, citing studies done in 1943 and 

1945, noted that the ESE was about 1 R but could be as much as 2.5 R. The measured value for 

ESE of 1.51 R for 4” × 5” chest photofluoroscopy (Kirklin et al. 1969; Rising and Soldat, 1959), is fully 

consistent with the value of 1.53 R observed by (Parker 1947) at Hanford and probably a reasonably 

accurate representation of the worker dose. In keeping with the principle of claimant favorability, the 

higher value of 1.53 R was used for dose calculations.

Chest Photofluorography 

Organ Dose Calculation Methods – Chest Photofluorography

The organ doses for photofluorography chest radiography were determined using a measured ESE 

value of 1.53 R for 4” × 5”chest photofluorography (Kirklin et al.1969). Organ doses were calculated 

using the exposure expressed as ESE and were made in accordance with dose conversion factors in 

Tables A2 through A8 of ICRP 34 (ICRP 1982). These tables list organ doses based on an SID of 

183 cm for chest radiography. Photofluorography was accomplished with an SID of 40 inches or 102 

cm. Given the geometric considerations regarding divergence of the beam as discussed in ICRP 

Publication 34 (pp. 23ff), this difference in distance would have a negligible effect on organ doses 

and, therefore, the values listed in Tables A2 to A8 are appropriate for chest photofluorography. 

Because absorbed organ dose for radiographs are a function of beam quality, an HVL of 2.5 mm Al 

was used for dose determination. 

The following method was used to calculate the dose in Gy for the period from March 1945 to January 

31, 1962, using the measured dose of 1.53 R. 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 20 of 28

March 1945 to 

1/31/62

4” × 5” photofluorographic chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE 

of 1.53 R. Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 1530 mR/100 mR per mGy= 15.30 

mGy and 15.30 mGy/1000 mGy per 1 Gy = 0.0153 Gy. This value in Gy is used 

with Table 3-7. DCFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al 

HVL) to determine organ doses in Table 3-8 for the listed organs in ICRP 34 

(1982). Doses to ovaries and testes are calculated from measurements (Rising & 

Soldat 1959).

Table 3-7. Average absorbed dose from chest photofluorography (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy 

entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 2.5 mm aluminum HVL. a

Organ View

Source-image 

distance(cm) Image receptor size (cm)

Dose conversion factor 

(mGy per Gy air kerma) 

(beam quality 2.5 mm aluminum HVL)

Thyroid PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 32

Ovaries PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 N/A c

Testes PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 N/A c

Lungs PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 451

Breast PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 49

Uterus/Embryo PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 1.3

Bone marrow PFG 102 10.2 × 12.7 92

Skin b PFG 102 1.35 x ESE

a. Dose conversion Factors from Tables A.2 through A.8, ICRP Publication 34 (1982)

b. Skin dose was determined by multiplying the ESE by the backscatter factors of 1.35 (for HVL of 2.5 mm Al) from NCRP Report No. 102 

(1989), Table B-8.

c. Ovaries, testes, and analog associated organ doses before March 1945 to 1/31/62 are based on measurements of 0.685 mrad for 

ovaries and 0.48 mrad for testes (Rising and Soldat 1959). 

Table 3-8. Organ dose estimates for Hanford photofluorography March 1945 to 1/31/1962. 

Organ View Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid Photo 4.90E-02

Eye/Brain Photo 4.90E-02

Ovaries c Photo 6.85E-03

Urinary bladder Photo 6.85E-03

Colon/Rectum Photo 6.85E-03

Testes c Photo 4.80E-04

Lungs Photo 6.90E-01

Thymus Photo 6.90E-01

Esophagus Photo 6.90E-01

Stomach Photo 6.90E-01

Bone Surface Photo 6.90E-01

Liver/gall bladder/spleen Photo 6.90E-01

Remainder Photo 6.90E-01

Breast Photo 7.50E-02

Uterus/Embryo Photo 1.99E-03

Bone marrow Photo 1.41E-01

Skin d Photo 2.07E00

d. Skin dose was determined by multiplying the ESE by the backscatter factors of 1.35 (for HVL of 2.5 mm Al) from NCRP Report No. 102 

(1989), Table B-8.

3.4 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR HANFORD RADIOGRAPHY DOSES

Error (deviation from the correct, true, or conventionally accepted value of a quantity) and uncertainty 

(defined in terms of the potential range of a stated, measured, assumed, or otherwise determined 

value of a quantity) provide an indication of the confidence of the dose estimates. Error implies 

knowledge of what the correct or actual value is, which is, of course, not known. Therefore, the more 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 21 of 28

appropriate factor is uncertainty, which is expressed in terms of a confidence level (e.g., 99% -- that 

the correct or true value, although not actually known, has a 99% probability of falling within the range 

cited) and includes both precision or reproducibility of the measurement and accuracy, or how close 

the measurement or estimate of dose comes to the actual or correct value.

In theory, a large number of factors can introduce uncertainties or affect the x-ray machine output 

intensity and dose to the worker. However, because x-ray doses at Hanford were derived largely from 

actual beam intensity measurements, in practice only five factors can be reasonably considered to 

have an impact on dose uncertainty: 

1. Measurement error

2. Variation in applied kilovoltage (kVp)

3. Variation in beam current (mA)

4. Variation in exposure time (mAs)

5. Distance from the worker to the source of the x-rays (SSD)

The influence of such other factors as use of screens, grids, reciprocity failure, film speed, and 

development, while potentially variable, would not affect the beam output intensity.

X-ray doses at Hanford were largely derived from actual measurement of x-ray machine output with 

R-meters or similar ionization chamber devices; if properly calibrated and used, these typically and 

historically have had an uncertainty of + 2% for photon energies below 400 keV (Kathren and Larson 

1969). Although more recent versions of these instruments might provide a somewhat smaller 

uncertainty, perhaps on the order of + 1% (NBS 1985, 1988), for conservatism, the uncertainty range 

of + 2% should be applied to measurements of x-ray intensity at Hanford.

Theoretically, for a given set of machine settings and parameters, x-ray output should be constant and 

unvarying. However, this is not true in practice, although output is essentially constant unless focal 

spot loading occurs, as might be the case when the power rating of the machine is exceeded. It is 

unlikely that power ratings were ever exceeded because such an event would be difficult to achieve in 

practice and could result in damage to the x-ray tube. However, even with the use of constant voltage 

transformers to control line voltages, slight variations might occur in line voltage input or other internal 

voltages, which in turn could alter the kVp of the output beam. In general, for a given kVp setting, 

variation in kVp falls within + 5% of the machine setting (Seibert et al. 1991). As noted above, beam 

intensity is approximately proportional to the 1.7 power of the kilovoltage; this translates to an 

uncertainty of approximately ± 8.6% with respect to output beam intensity in the 80 to 100 kVp used 

for diagnostic radiographs at Hanford. For conservatism, this is rounded up to + 9%.

Similarly slight variations in tube current are normal; as a tube ages, or heats up from use, current can 

change and typically will drop. With all other factors constant, beam intensity will be reduced in direct 

proportion to the change in tube current. Typically, the reduction in beam output from current 

variation is not more than a few percent under normal operating conditions; large decreases are 

readily detectable and result in maintenance on the machine to restore the output or, as a temporary 

measure, an increase in the current or kVp to provide the necessary intensity for proper radiography. 

There is no evidence to suggest that such temporary measures were ever necessary or applied at 

Hanford. For a given kVp setting, the output of the beam is a function of the tube current, which in 

turn is measured by a milliammeter, which measures average tube current. The measurement is 

subject to uncertainties; there might be minor changes in output as the tube heats from normal use. 

Because these variations are typically small, the estimated uncertainty in beam output attributable to 

current variation is + 5%. 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 22 of 28

Another parameter that has potential to affect the dose from a diagnostic radiograph, perhaps 

significantly, relates to the time of exposure. A full wave rectified machine produces 120 pulses per 

second of x-rays. In an exposure time of 1/20 of a second, only six pulses would result. A small error 

in the timer that resulted in a change of only + 1 pulse would correspondingly affect the output by +

17%; for an exposure time of 1/30 of a second, the change in output corresponding to a deviation of +

1 pulse is + 25%. Early mechanical timers were notoriously inaccurate; accuracy improved 

significantly with the introduction of electronic timers. Other than measurements of reproducibility 

made in the late 1980s and beyond by the State of Washington, there are no data on which to base 

an evaluation of the accuracy and precision of the timers on Hanford x-ray machines. The 

measurements made by the State suggest that the timers, and indeed the entire x-ray output, were 

fairly constant. However, for conservatism, the assumed uncertainty in beam output attributable to 

timers has an upper limit of + 25%. 

The final factor likely to affect worker dose relates to distance from the source of the x-rays, which is a 

determinant of the entrance skin exposure. For a given individual, the SSD will be determined largely 

by the body thickness of the worker and the accuracy of the positioning. For a typical worker, the

estimated variation in SSD is no more than a few centimeters, with an upper limit of perhaps 7.5 cm. 

Using inverse square, this indicates an uncertainty of + 10% from this source.

There are two approaches to determine the combined uncertainty from the five potential sources of 

dose uncertainty listed above. The first, and most conservative in that it gives the greatest range, 

would be to assume that the uncertainties are additive, which would give an uncertainty range of 2 + 9 

+5 + 25 + 10 = + 51%. However, a more reasonable approach would be to assume that the 

uncertainties are in fact random, and to compute the statistical uncertainty, which is simply the square 

root of the sum of the squares of all the various uncertainties, and is equal to + 28.9%. Rounding this 

up to + 30% would seem to provide an adequate and suitably conservative indication of uncertainty. 

Thus, for an individual ESE or derived organ dose, a total uncertainty of + 30% can be assumed; for 

further conservatism it might be appropriate to assume that errors are all positive, and only + 30% 

should be used.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 23 of 28

REFERENCES

BRH (Bureau of Radiological Health), 1970, Radiological Health Handbook, Revised Edition, U.S. 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Rockville, Maryland, p. 159.

Cahoon, J. B, 1961, Formulating X-Ray Technics, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, p. 

183.

Cantril, S. T, 1946, Industrial Medical Programs Hanford Engineer Works, U. S. Atomic Energy 

Commission Report MDDC – 602, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 15. 

Cantril, S. T, 1951, Industrial Medical Programs- Hanford Engineer Works, In: Stone, R. S. Industrial 

Medicine on the Plutonium Project, McGraw Hill, New York 1951, pp. 289-307. 

Cardarelli, J., H. Spitz, C. Rice, R. Buncher, H. Elson and P. Succop, 2002, “Significance of Radiation 

Exposure From Work-Related Chest X-Rays for Epidemiological Studies of Radiation 

Workers,” Amer. J. Indust. Med. 42:490-501.

Cleavinger, L. R., 1978, “Guidelines for Diagnostic X-rays,” letter to Margery J. Swint, Hanford

Environmental Health Foundation.

Daly, J. B, 1985, letter to T. R. Strong, Washington Department of Social and Health Services, 

January 28.

Fuchs, Arthur W, 1958, Principles of Radiographic Exposure and Processing, Charles W, Thomas,

Springfield, p. 184. 

Fuqua, P. A., 1981 Memorandum to Physicians, Physicians Assistants, December 22.

Gray, J. A., 1996, “Safety (Risk) of Diagnostic Radiology Exposures”, Chapter 4 in Radiation and 

Risk, American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia, p. 15.

Handloser, J. S., 1951, “Radiation Doses from Diagnostic X-ray Studies,” Radiology 57:252-254.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1982, “Protection of the Worker in 

Diagnostic Radiology,” Annals of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 34, 9(2/3):1-82.

ICRU (Fifth International Congress on Radiology), 1937, “Recommendations of the International 

Committee for Radiological Units.” Radiology 29:634.

ICRU (Fundamental Quantities and Units for Ionizing Radiation) ICRU Report 60, Published in 

Bethesda, Maryland, 1998

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), 1998, Fundamental 

Quantities and Units for Ionizing Radiation, ICRU Report 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Kathren, R. L., 1983, memorandum to K. R. Heid, Battelle-Northwest, January 28. Battelle-Northwest, 

Richland, WA.

Kathren, R. L., 1965, "Spectral and Output Measurements of a Wide Beam K-Fluorescence Radiator," 

in Hazards Control Quarterly Report No. 20, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report 

UCRL-14151, pp. 1-5.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 24 of 28

Kathren, R. L. and G. R. Petersen, 1989, “Units and Terminology of Radiation Measurement: A 

Primer for the Epidemiologist,” Amer. J. Epidemiol. 130:1076-1087.

Kathren, R. L. and H. V. Larson, 1969, “Radiological Calibration and Standardization for Health 

Physics: A Program, A Plea, and a Proposal,” Health Phys. 16:778-782.

Kirklin, C. W., B. D. Nuss, K. R. Heid, F. L. Rising, F. E. Adley, and E. B. Lavelle, 1969, The AEC 

Health and Mortality Study: Its Purpose, Scope and Design and the Supporting Data Systems 

from the Hanford Operations: Retrospective and Continuing Phases of Data Acquisition, 

Unpublished study, Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, pp 140-158. Available at DOE 

Reading Room, Consolidated Information Center, Washington State University at Tri-Cities.

Magie, W. F., 1896. The Clinical Application of the Roentgen Rays. 1. The Use of Roentgen 

Apparatus, American Journal of Medical Science, volume 111, pp. 251–255.

Mancuso, T.F, B.F. Sanders and A. Brodsky. "Feasibility Study of the Correlation of Lifetime Health 

and Mortality Experience of AEC and AEC Contractor Employees with Occupational Radiation 

Exposure". Progress Report NYO - 3394-5 (1966)

Mancuso, T.F, B.F. Sanders and A. Brodsky. "Feasibility Study of the Correlation of Lifetime Health 

and Mortality Experience of AEC and AEC Contractor Employees with Occupational Radiation 

Exposure". Progress Report NYO - 3394-9 (1968)

Milroy, W. C., 1988, Letter to Kelly P. Cameron, Washington State, January 20, 1988.

Newton, C. E. to K. R. Heid, Memo “Kadlec Hospital Exposures, dated 4/28/76 

NBS (National Bureau of Standards) 1936. X-ray Protection, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 

20. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington D.C..

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1949, Medical X-ray Protection Up To Two Million Volts, 

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 41, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C. 

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1955, X-ray Protection, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 

60, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

NBS (National Bureau of Standards; now National Institute of Standards and Technology), 1985, 

Calibration and Related Services, NBS Special Publication 250, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards; now National Institute of Standards and Technology), 1988, 

Calibration of X-ray and Gamma Ray Measuring Instruments, NBS Publication 250-16, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1968, Medical X-Ray and 

Gamma-Ray Protection for Energies Up To 10 MeV, NCRP Report No. 33, Washington, D.C. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1985, SI Units in Radiation 

Protection and Measurement, NCRP Report No. 82, Bethesda, Maryland.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 25 of 28

NCRP (Medical X-ray, Electron Beam and gamma-Ray Protection for Energies Up to 50 MeV) 

(Equipment Design, Performance and Use) NCRP Report No. 102, June 30, 1989

Norwood, W. D., J. W. Healy, E. E. Donaldson, W. C. Roesch, and C. W. Kirklin, 1959, “The Gonadal 

Radiation Dose Received by the People of a Small American City Due to the Diagnostic Use 

of Roentgen Rays,” Amer. J. Roentgenol. Rad. Ther. Nucl. Med. 82:1081-1097.

Olson, C.P., B. W. Trask, and E. L. Dessen, 1966, “Minor Commands,” Chapter XXXVI in Radiology 

in World War II (A. L. Ahnfeldt, K. D. Allen, E. M. McFetridge, M. W. Stein, Eds.), Department 

of the Army, Washington, D.C., p. 821.

Parker, H. M, 1947, Health-Physics, Instrumentation and Radiation Protection, U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission Report MDDC-783. (Date of manuscript unknown, date of declassification March 

25, 1947.)

Picker (Picker X-Ray Corporation), 1941, Outline of Modern X-Ray Technic, Third Edition, Cleveland, 

Ohio, p. 67.

Rising, F. L. and J. K. Soldat, 1959, “Radiation Exposures During Diagnostic Radiographic 

Examinations at Kadlec Methodist Hospital,” letter to Dr. W. D. Norwood, April 30, 1959.

Sante, L. R, 1946, Manual of Roentgenographic Technique, Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

p. 61.

Seibert, J. A., G. T. Barnes and R. G. Gould, 1991, Specification, Acceptance Testing, and Quality 

Control of Diagnostic X-ray Imaging Equipment, Medical Physics Monograph No. 20, 

American Institute of Physics, New York.

Stanford, R. W. and J. Vance, 1955, “The Quantity of Radiation Received by the Reproductive Organs 

of Workers During Routine Diagnostic X-Ray Examinations,” Brit. J. Radiol. 28:266-273.

State of Washington, Department of Health, Radiographic Inspection Results dated 3/30/1990; 

11/11/1993; 4/22/1997; 12/18/1997; 2/4/1998; 10/18/1999. 

Taylor, L. S, 1957, “Practical Suggestions for Reducing Radiation Exposure in Diagnostic 

Examinations,” Amer. J. Roentgenology. Radium Ther. Nucl Med. 78:983-987.

Trout, E. D., J. P. Kelley, and G. A. Cathey, 1952, “Use of Filters to Control Radiation Exposure to 

Worker in Diagnostic Roentgenology,” Amer. J. Roentgenology Rad. Ther. Nucl. Med. 67:962-

963.

Vails, K. W, 1980, “Memo to Examiners”, internal memorandum, Hanford Environmental Health 

Foundation.
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 26 of 28

GLOSSARY

entrance skin exposure (ESE)

The exposure at the point where the x-ray beam enters the skin.

film speed

A measure of the sensitivity of the film to x-rays or light.

filtration

Material in the useful beam which, absorbs preferentially the less penetrating radiation. 

focal spot

The apparent size of the radiation source region in a source assembly when viewed 

from the central axis of the useful radiation beam. 

gray (Gy)

The special name for the SI unit of absorbed dose, kerma, and specific energy 

imparted equal to one (1) joule per kilogram (J/kg). (1 Gy = 1 J/kg = 100 rad) 

grid

A series of lead strips used to improve the quality of radiographic images by removing 

scattered x-rays. 

half value layer (HVL)

Thickness of a specified substance which, when introduced into the path of a given 

beam of radiation, reduces the kerma rate by one-half. (usually specified in mm Al.)

Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP)

A computer software program that uses information on the dose-response relationship, 

and specific factors such as a claimant’s radiation exposure, gender, age at diagnosis, 

and age at exposure to calculate the probability of causation for a given pattern and 

level of radiation exposure.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

An independent international scientific body, established to advance for the public 

benefit the science of radiological protection, in particular by providing 

recommendations and guidance on all aspects of protection against ionizing radiation.

inverse square law

The mathematical relationship between the exposure rate from a point source of 

radiation and the distance from the source.

kerma

The sum of the initial kinetic energies of all the charged ionizing particles liberated by 

uncharged ionizing particles per unit mass of a specified material. 

kiloelectronvolt (keV)

The energy equal to that acquired by a particle with one electron charge in passing 

through a potential difference of 1000 volts. 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 27 of 28

milliammeter

An instrument for measuring electric current in milliamperes. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)

A nongovernmental, public service organization that formulates and disseminates 

information, guidance and recommendations on radiation protection and 

measurements. 

organ dose

The dose to a given organ from an x-ray procedure.

photofluorography

An obsolete radiographic technique in which the image produced on a fluorescent 

screen by x-rays was photographed. 

photon

A quantum of electromagnetic radiation. 

posterior/anterior (P/A)

A radiographic position in which the x-ray beam passes from posterior to the anterior 

side of the patient.

pre-placement x-ray

A diagnostic radiograph, usually a chest x-ray, taken before a worker is hired or 

assigned to a specific job.

probability of causation (POC)

The probability or likelihood that a cancer was caused by occupational exposure to 

ionizing radiation. 

pulmonary

Relating to, functioning like, or associated with the lungs. 

radiograph 

A photographic negative or picture made with x-rays.

root-mean-square

The square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of a set of numbers. 

screens

Fluorescent material in x-ray film cassettes that absorbs the x-rays and converts it into 

light that exposes the x-ray film.

source-to-image distance (SID)

The distance measured along the central ray from the center of the front of the surface 

of the source (focal spot) to the surface of the image detector. 

source-to-skin distance (SSD)

The distance measured along the central ray from the center of the front of the surface 

of the source (focal spot) to the surface of the irradiated object or the patient. 
Effective Date: 04/11/2005 Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 28 of 28

technique factors

The variables in machine setting, i.e., the peak voltage (kVp), current (mA), and time 

(s), that are used for taking a diagnostic radiograph.

termination x-ray

An x-ray, usually a chest x-ray that is taken when the employee is separated from the 

company.

tube current

The current flowing through the filament or cathode in an x-ray tube.

variable

A quantity that may assume any one of a set of values.

x-ray

Ionizing electromagnetic radiation originating outside the nucleus; also, a radiograph or 

photographic negative or picture made with x-rays.

x-ray tube

An evacuated electronic tube in which x-rays are generated when electrons are 

accelerated by an applied voltage and strike an anode or target.